Today, I received an email response to the authors' critics here at Booman Tribune from one of the authors, Axel Geijsel of Tilburgen University in the Netherlands (a.geijsel@tilburguniversity.edu). Here is what Axel sent me in that email:

Dear Steven,

In regards to your earlier email. The criticism that you forwarded to us can be divided in two parts. The first is that we should add additional data in our appendix (most of which we have available), the second is that we shouldn't have used the exit poll data. The former we have no qualms with and will be more than happy to include, the latter is based on faulty information, and considering the vigor with which they mention it. We could not help but feel it was drivel. Especially given the fact that they linked to a website which was authored by someone who doesn't know absolute basics of statistics.

Some of the sources coming from media-outlets, from which most of the writers in question knowing very little about statistics (certain articles kind of shocked me). An interesting one of the mentioned sources being from Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight), where he wrote a 10-part critique about exit polling: For which he did not go unscrutinized: [source].

He has received earlier criticism as well from different analysts. [[source]; [source]. And from anecdotal reference, he has been criticized many times more before too.

In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play.

Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place.

The attachment, due to its length is below the fold. You are, of course free to say whatever you like in the comments, but I suggest that if you have sincere issues with the report, the proper place to begin is contacting the authors.

For myself, I have nothing further to add to their response, or to my father's comment about the satudy previously posted here at Booman Tribune.

(Study authors' attachment follows below fold)

Attachment:

Page 1

This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

They allow “weighting” of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of “one person-one vote” to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.

Instead of “1” the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.
Fractions in results reports are not visible.Votes containing decimals are reported as whole numbers unless specifically instructed to reveal decimals (which is not the default setting). All evidence that fractional values ever existed can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the decimals will fail to reveal they were used.

The amount of support Clinton receives among blacks is far higher in states without a paper trail, than the states with a paper trail.

Page 2

Even when adjusting for the proportion of black voters in a state, the amount that votes for Clinton is still disproportionally higher.

[note from the writer, this might indicate that if tampering with the votes has occurred, it would be reasonable to assume that they are added to subgroups which are claimed to heavily favor Hillary Clinton, i.e. black and female voters (for the latter I have not found the time yet)]

In the above polls done by Gallup and Pew research center Sanders scores a higher favorability ratings than Clinton. In all the ratings, conducted by these renowned institutes, they found that the favorability ratings for Sanders consistently outperformed Hillary Clinton, with mixed results in the subgroup of African American voters. The last being one of the biggest claimed subgroups which would favor Hillary Clinton. This is in stark contrast with the results in the non paper-trail states, where Clinton won the African American vote with 83%. In the paper-trail states, she only won them with 74% of the votes. The latter lying far closer to the polling results.

Not just that, Sanders outperforms Clinton in almost all the groups and subgroups in these polls, which is in stark contrast with the end results from the primaries. These results in earlier elections often lied very closely to the actual final results.

* * *

In the following pages, graphs are shown containing the cumulative placed votes over time. In sampling, polling, or any other form of statistical analysis. The general rule is that the higher the amount of trials that one does, the more you would get closer to the actual ‘true’ number. Meaning, the more votes that are placed, the more chance that the number that is given is correct.

Because of this, at the start of the polling, the numbers might fluctuate heavily, after which they will stabilize over time. Similar to an 1/x graph. On the following three pages, you will find numerous examples in which the graphs will indeed smoothe out. These are examples of graphs as you would normally find them.

On the three pages thereafter, you will find abnormal curves. Incidentally, all of these changes favored Hillary Clinton. Below the graphs, you will find the p-value as we found through our own proportional analysis. Meaning, the smaller the p-value, the higher the discrepancy between the exit-polls and the final results (i.e. indicating the chance of such an occurrence; e.g. p=0,07 is a 7% chance). These are indications of election fraud taking place.
Most of the normal curves are retrieved from the New York Times website. The abnormal curves have been retrieved from the website of - https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/2016-election/ . The reason for this is because the abnormal graphs have been removed from the mainstream media websites.

“One can also search for trends to check for fraud. One of the most revealing methods, the Cumulative Vote Share Analysis, searches for a correlation between the size of a discrepancy (between recorded vote and exit polls) and the size of a precinct. When no fraud has taken place the trend tends to be quite regular. When the discrepancy tends to manifest as the size of the precinct becomes larger than a certain value, it is a strong indication of fraud, according to Richard Charnin. Roughly speaking the reason for this behavior is that electronic rigging is implemented strategically in order not to become obvious. The discrepancy caused by the rigging is “better” distributed between those precincts that are big enough to be worth the effort.”

Looking at the discrepancies between the exit polls and the final tally, nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin. This is statistically impossible (“The probability P of this happening is 1 in 77 billion”).

“A discrepancy between the declared vote (recorded vote) and the vote extrapolated from the exit polls is an indication of fraud when it is above a margin of error of 2% within a confidence level of 95%.
Here is how it works. When statisticians try to measure the ‘real vote’ they not only estimate the final vote count but they also analyze the entire distribution of the data they gathered from the exit poll voter sampling in order to determine the reliability of their final determination. When fluctuations in the data are due to randomness they will follow a statistical distribution that follows the shape of a bell curve, the Gaussian curve. The reliability or unreliability of the sample data doesn’t depend so much on the trustworthiness of those who collect the exit poll voter sampling, but it’s rather intrinsic to the shape of the distribution. From this shape an ‘interval of confidence’ is determined within which we can unquestionably claim our confidence that we got it right with a probability of 95%--always 95%. This interval of confidence is also called ‘margin of error’ (MoE).

Poorly informed ‘experts’ frequently argue that the statistical analysis of exit polls can be misleading because it assumes that real life data is randomly distributed (as in the Gaussian curve) when that’s not always the case. And here is where they are missing a central point. The expectation that sample data will be randomly distributed ALREADY takes into account all possible relevant factors in a practical observation in real life. When extraneous factors intervene, a discrepancy will make the recorded value fall outside of the interval of confidence signaling only one possibility: a systematic error. When this occurs statisticians make further analysis to determine the causes, and either remove the cause or include it into the ‘margin of error’. After 59 years of fine-tuning this process in countless elections around the world statisticians have reached a point where exit polls have become extremely reliable. If the final ‘Recorded Vote’ falls outside the interval of confidence one can assume with a high degree of certainty that the systematic error is intentional. This is why we say that we have a high probability of fraud.”
Retrieved from : http://www.democracyintegrity.org/ElectoralFraud/just-doing-the-math.html

- by Giovanni and Marcello Pietrobon; Berkeley, June 3rd, 2016

Page 15

“My specialty is statistics and I’ve pulled down publicly available data independently, analyzed it myself, and corroborated analyses which points to massive widespread election fraud. Mr. Holland disparages the mathematical work of Richard Charnin*, but I have not found an error in any of the analyses of his that I have repeated.

In particular, his assessment of the binomial probability regarding the likelihood of the exit poll results, is both accurate and appropriate. I have verified it myself. This binomial analysis was ignored by Mr. Holland in favor of criticizing a different approach that was also used. That approach is also sound, but I have not reproduced those calculations. That both models show results that are consistent with the hypothesis of election fraud is more than doubly damning.

If we assume no election fraud, then the two different types of analysis of the exit poll errors are unrelated because one analysis looks at the size of the error while the other is based on whether it benefited Hillary versus Bernie. That they are both consistent with fraud could be considered a third piece of evidence in support of that hypothesis.
There are only two possibilities – a) Bernie supporters are more likely to respond to the poll or b) there is widespread election fraud altering election results in favor of Hillary across the U.S.
Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis pioneered by Francis Choquette shows problems across the nation for the past decade or more. Interestingly enough, places that use hand counted ballots do not show the same trends and within a state, analyzing by machine can show sharply different trends for different equipment. Such analysis shows trends that are indicative of rigging that favors Hillary.

The apparent ease of hacking electronic voting machines combined with the prevalence of election rigging through-out the world and human history.
Lack of basic quality control procedures: In most locations in the U.S., no one – not officials and not citizens – actually verify the official vote counts. Canvassing becomes a sham that involves verifying that yes, the machine produced outcomes all add up to the machine produced totals. In those places where the count was supposed to be publicly verified,citizens watching report blatant miscounting to force a match to the “official results”. Their testimony to election commissioners about such actions were met with a blank stare followed by dismissal of their testimony.

I do not make that statement lightly. I hold a Ph.D. in statistics and have been certified as a Quality Engineer for nearly 30 years. I’ve gone to the extreme of filing a lawsuit requesting access to the voting machine records to verify those election results. So far, I haven’t been allowed access.

Comments

Any time the DNC and their cronies want us to "Just Trust Them", they betray that trust. Any time they know we're watching and can stop them, they stick to the letter of the rules, if not the spirit.

Which says they don't actually believe in democracy. They follow the rules not because of adherence to society, but rather through fear of punishment.

These folks probably would be happier in a dictatorship. Lord knows they fund the PIC enough, which also subscribes to this theory of deterrence. Hell, It's why they don't trust the lower classes not to be thieves and murderers. Because THEY'D do it, if they could get away with it.

it's really an old Russian proverb which I recall became popular after Raygun heard it and repeated it frequently beginning in the Reykjavik arms control negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s.

You'd have to be from another planet or very young not to remember that expression.

Their concept of democracy, and really this seemingly perpetual 2-party system, it definitely evolved from the Jeffersonian vrs the Hamiltonian viewpoints. And I think that is why it is so hard to get rid of that dichotomy and move on to more advanced perspectives for a democratic society.

DNC with Clinton's malevolent influence, it shifted their party into full Hamiltonian mode, dropping any pretenses of a Jefferson approach altogether. Such that the DNC is just slightly watered-down version of the RNC.

I think Bernie is trying to force the Democrats back into a Jeffersonian style, it must seem horrific to the rightwing to imagine socialism but in fact a working class democracy is perfectly compatible with a Jeffersonian democracy.

Marx's contribution to the understanding of political economies, a hundred years after Jefferson and Hamilton, IMHO it is a critical part of building a more egilatarian society. But how that is implemented, that's also based on national culture and its history.

Each country has to develop independently without any coercion from the larger and more powerful nations. Hillary will never understand this, and neither will Trump. That is why they will be equally dangerous as POTUS.

They will stomp their feet, call us sore losers, and keep insisting that she won "fair and square." (All while still expecting us to vote for Her Majesty come November, no matter how poorly they treat us.)

As for the second, I'm guessing that they simply don't cover it except at the bare, bare minimum of mention. A Bernie win in CA and would be a blow to the media corporations, especially after all that they've done to promote HRC as the anointed one from the very beginning. It would make it clear that they'll lie to advance their interests and narrative, as if that wasn't already obvious.

It would force them to admit that they were wrong, and they'll avoid it at all costs.

That's great news.
And make sure to read the comments. There are many people who are saying that there is no way that they will vote for Hillary.
The whole election has corruption all over it , starting with the exit polls that showed Bernie was getting more votes. Yet when the votes were counted they went to Hillary.
In every state that had a problem with voting, Hillary always came out ahead. No one is that fortunate.
The election was stolen from us and Bernie.
And if something happens to Hillary, then Bernie, not Biden or anyone else gets the delegates and wins the election. Period.

up

6 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

I have long maintained that anyone that wanted to rig an election would target the central tabulators rather than individual voting machines. The statement in the appendix that the GEMS tabulators have a built in multiplier provision is startling. If true, this could easily be used to rig an election and I can not think of a legitimate reason for having a multiplier, certainly not a reason for having a stealth multiplier.

they cannot understand something like these posts because they have decided that this is all conspiracy theory. They will attack it and piss and moan, but not learn anything

wait until there is something more solid that will at least get them to think and

hopefully

scare the shit out of them because Bernie might just pull it off and win the nomination

In summary, the establishment, the political culture, has not wanted to touch this issue. They literally run from it - a woman tried to bring up election integrity to Al Frankin and he ran away. John Kerry ran away from possibly the worst election in US history, the 2004 election in OH -- wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole.

So if those people which at least have some brains run from it, the ideologues at TOP would just flip out and nothing would come of it

is the IT guy working for Karl Rove who died in a small airplane crash shortly after his deposition regarding the stolen OH election in 2004. These people committing the election theft will apparently go to any length to conceal their crime.

In their narrow world. They ban everything that says mean things about her because they are so blindly naive about what she really and actually stands for and who she will represent.
I confess that I did the same thing with Obama during his first campaign. I believed that he would deliver what he was promising us.
There were other people who were trying to tell us that he wasn't to be taken seriously, but so many of us were so sick about what happened during the bush administration that we were so ready for the hope and change bullshit he told us.
Look at the number of years that people said he was playing fucking chess and was just setting up the GOP and then he would get his way.
Even after he betrayed us with the FISA vote, his cabinet picks, the back room deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies and his surge in Afghanistan.
Bait and switch. No wonder his campaign won so many awards. The category was Fantasy.

up

6 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

I've watched multiple elections and typically rural and suburban areas report first. Larger population centers typically report later since it takes longer to tally votes and those tallies can often include a number of voters.

I don't really find it "miraculous" that Clinton saw a big shift in her vote when Louisville's final votes came in.

In some of these contests I do think that Clinton allies gamed the vote, but the data contains plenty of lurking variables.

e.g. why assume that the black vote in states without paper trails is the same as states were there is a paper trail?

e.g. lurking variables could include age, income, and other factors. If the vote in states without paper trails skewed older, than those with them, why would the two data sets match-up?

While I am absolutely confident that $$Hill's minions in the Dem establishment used every tactic in their dirty playbook to deny Sanders supporters their votes, I think much of the 'weirdness' in the data above is due to the very drastic differences between the supporters of the 2 candidates. The age, income and race (especially in the south) differences between their supporters are what is driving most if not all of this bizarre data. The fact that both higher income voters and AA voters are concentrated in higher population areas of many of these states explains the skewing in those precinct-size graphs. If anyone has any data that disproves my unproven theory, I'd love to see it, because more data is better, always.
What saddens me most is that the Dem establishment did such a good job of denying information to AA voters that a majority voted for the candidate who does not intend to do anything to help them or their communities, and in fact, based upon past experience, will likely make their economic situation much, much worse.

I do think there were some individual contests where local party officials tried to disqualify likely Sanders voters prior to election day -- and there were some questionable counts in places like Iowa -- no tallies of votes; Puerto Rico at the end was a complete sham, but for the most part I doubt many of these states where Republican leaders were actually administering the elections were doing so with an eye towards hurting Sanders and helping Clinton. I suspect, in most cases, that the discrepancy is due to less nefarious reasons.

The evidence is mathematically and scientifically sound: election fraud is real and is caused by human (neocon/neoliberal) activity.

Now watch while when presented with actual proof, the Clinton sycophants stick their fingers in their ears and make la-la noises, all the while accusing US of being tea party-esque (see: Clinton, Bill: various voter suppression events -- I mean, um, "rallies"). It's almost kind of sad. In any case, I fluctuate between grief (the loss, hopefully temporary, of friendships I once thought were true) and anger (witnessing the darkness of brainwashing overtake people I've always known to be smart and good). What they think they're fighting, they've actually become, and the air is thick with denial and projection.

Anyway, thanks for keeping us up to speed, Steven D, and bravo for your tenacity!

"It is shocking how such an important contest had little attention in the National media. What happened in the Puerto Rico (PR) Primary should be classified as the biggest voter disenfranchisement this primary cycle."

Includes numerous links to articles describing the voter suppression in Puerto Rico. This was the grossest example of fraud I have seen since elections in Haiti and Honduras, both examples of past elections rigged with Clinton interference.

This Clinton machine thinks they can get away with suppressing black and brown voters outside of the United States!! I will do (what little) I can to make sure that every black and brown voter in the world knows how the Clinton machine treats us.

Sadly, people who weren't looking and paying attention to social media types who translated the Spanish-language press into English and let people like ME know what was going on--

don't know.

Now, almost everybody knows that election fraud *has* happened, because Hillary, or whoever is doing this for her, has not bothered to cover their tracks; they have been repeatedly ham-handed. So probably most of America knows that Hillary has cheated. But they likely *don't* know about this.

Death threats to prisoners if they don't vote for Hillary? Takes it into a whole other realm.

up

1 user has voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

to support the effort to make this voter disenfranchisement in PR better known, and to help prevent it from happening. I am not in PR physically, but my solidarity extends to the poor and disenfranchised through this hemisphere and throughout the world.

I do not like cheaters.

Cheaters who cheat and then boast about their success are very irritating.

Cheaters who steal from the poor and keep individuals from exercising basic freedoms are intolerable and must be stopped.

I am responsible for not having responded.

Edit note: this was a reply to Alex Ocana, but the thought applies to all the data contained in this very fine post by Steven D. Thank you for the work
you do and for sharing this with us.